What do regulatory agencies (FDA, EFSA, WHO) currently recommend for daily chromium intake and upper limits?
Executive summary
Regulatory bodies diverge: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded in 2014 that the evidence is insufficient to set dietary reference values for trivalent chromium and therefore did not define an Average Requirement or Population Reference Intake (PRI) [1]. In contrast, U.S. authorities (the Food and Nutrition Board / Institute of Medicine, summarized in U.S. reviews) have published Adequate Intakes (AIs) for adults (roughly 25–35 μg/day depending on sex) that are routinely cited by U.S. guidance, while WHO and some EFSA opinions have treated a supplemental ceiling of about 250 μg/day as a practical safety boundary for chromium(III) in supplements [2] [3] [4].
1. U.S. stance — FDA, IOM and “adequate intakes” versus regulatory roles
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not itself set Dietary Reference Intakes, but U.S. nutrition reference values come from the Food and Nutrition Board/Institute of Medicine which estimated Adequate Intakes for adults: about 35 μg/day for men and 25 μg/day for women in the 19–50 year age range, numbers still used in U.S. nutrition discussions and summaries [2] [3]. The NIH Office of Dietary Supplements details definitions (EAR, UL) and summarizes that FDA allows only limited qualified health claims for chromium supplements, reflecting regulatory caution about efficacy claims [5]. FDA’s role over supplements is regulatory oversight rather than setting population nutrient requirements [6].
2. EFSA’s position — no requirement defined, no population intake set
EFSA’s NDA Panel concluded in 2014 that the evidence does not convincingly establish trivalent chromium as an essential nutrient for the general population and therefore it could not define an Average Requirement or Population Reference Intake for chromium; EFSA also found no evidence of beneficial effects in healthy subjects sufficient to justify population-level intake recommendations [1]. Earlier EFSA and SCF work also noted insufficient data to set a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for Cr(III) because of limited data on dose–response and adverse-effect thresholds [7] [1].
3. WHO and EFSA safety ceilings — the 250 μg/day anchor for supplements
Although EFSA declined to set PRIs, EFSA evaluations of chromium picolinate specifically concluded that uses of chromium(III) picolinate in foods and supplements would not be of concern provided total chromium did not exceed 250 μg/day — a threshold the opinion notes was the value established by WHO for supplemental chromium intake not to be exceeded [4]. Independent reviews and regional guidance have echoed 250 μg/day as a practical upper supplemental boundary for chromium picolinate safety [3].
4. Forms matter — trivalent versus hexavalent chromium and regulatory focus
Regulatory assessments and risk opinions explicitly limit their conclusions to trivalent chromium (Cr(III)), the nutritional form found in foods and supplements; hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is a distinct contaminant with different toxicity concerns and has been the subject of separate EFSA CONTAM risk assessments for food and water [7] [8]. Agencies therefore separate nutrient guidance from contaminant risk assessments, which complicates simple “safe level” statements unless the chromium chemical form is specified [8] [7].
5. Practical context, industry messaging, and scientific uncertainty
Supplement manufacturers actively market chromium products for glycaemic control despite mixed evidence, and regulatory bodies have been cautious about efficacy claims — a dynamic that can inflate consumer perceptions of need while scientific panels (EFSA) and some reviews find no clear benefit in healthy people [5] [1]. Major evidence gaps persist: EFSA explicitly cited lack of data on reversibility of deficiency and dose–response relationships, which is why some authorities refrain from formal requirement values while others adopt AIs based on dietary surveys or pragmatic safety ceilings [1] [2].
6. Bottom line — what to use as guidance
For policy and clinical clarity: U.S. reference work (IOM/Food and Nutrition Board) provides AIs of roughly 25–35 μg/day for adults that are commonly referenced in the U.S. context [2]; EFSA does not define population reference intakes and highlights insufficient evidence to treat chromium as an essential nutrient [1]; WHO-informed and EFSA-reviewed safety advice has been used to place a practical supplemental ceiling around 250 μg/day for chromium(III) sources such as chromium picolinate [4] [3]. All of these positions carry caveats about limited data, form-specific toxicity (Cr(III) vs Cr(VI)), and the weak evidence base for benefit in healthy people [1] [8] [5].